Skip to content
Society of Family Planning at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Society of Family Planning

THE SOCIETY OF FAMILY PLANNING IS THE SOURCE FOR ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION SCIENCE.

$4.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
61
Grants FY2025still arriving
31
States reached
$723k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$7.0MHealth$3.2MScience & Tech$1.1MCivil Rights$396kSocial Science$58kRecreation & Sports$8kCommunity Improvement$6kEmployment$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 61 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k23 grants · $121k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $78k
  • $50k–250k33 grants · $3.1M
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.2M
$53,927
Median grant
31
States reached
$31M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Regents of the University of California SF$723,000
University of Washington$436,428
University of Texas at Austin$242,500
Ibis Reproductive Health Inc$240,400
University of Maryland$225,000
Vitala Global Foundation$150,000
Rutgers The State University of New Jersey$144,000
Georgia Tech Research Corporation$134,690
The Pennsylvania State University$132,500
Resound Research for Reproductive Health$127,330
Boston Medical Center$121,315
Oregon Health & Science University$97,433
Brigham and Women's Hospital$89,640
University of Pittsburgh$75,000
The Ohio State University$75,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Ibis Reproductive Health Inc: $240k → 8%Brigham and Women's Hospital: $90k → 16%Regents of the University of Minnesota: $69k → 11%The Pennsylvania State University: $133k → 12%REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO: $53k → 11%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $111k → 16%Westchester Medical Center: $75k → 9%Albany Medical College: $67k → 14%University of Texas at Austin: $243k → 10%THE TUBMAN TRAVEL PROJECT: $63k → 14%Baylor College of Medicine: $54k → 16%University of South Carolina: $75k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM: $158k → 16%WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $54k → 21%BD of Regents of the University of Wisconsin Syst: $68k → 10%Oregon Health & Science University: $97k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: $62k → 13%FEMINIST WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER INC: $54k → 14%Trustees of Indiana University: $54k → 18%The Ohio State University: $342k → 15%Rutgers The State University of New Jersey: $144k → 8%Virginia Tech: $54k → 21%PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: $225k → 9%LOUISIANA ABORTION FUND: $123k → 23%University of Maryland: $225k → 11%Ibis Reproductive Health Inc: $78k → 8%IfWhenHow: $154k → 10%Regents of the University of California Davis: $50k → 16%Regents of the University of Michigan: $54k → 14%OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $52k → 12%University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: $50k → 13%Georgia Tech Research Corporation: $135k → 13%The Ohio State University: $75k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $104k → 11%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $165k → 19%Trustees of University of Pennsylvania: $66k → 22%Kaiser Permanente: $53k → 10%Guttmacher Institute: $68k → 17%Saint Louis University: $54k → 21%GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $54k → 13%National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum: $121k → 14%TULANE UNIVERSITY: $60k → 23%University of Maryland: $101k → 11%Boston Medical Center: $121k → 16%Drexel University: $54k → 22%Regents of the University of California Berkeley: $75k → 10%AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: $51k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $195k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
VT
WA
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
NM
KS
TN
NC
SC
DC
HI
LA
AL
GA
TX
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.6M · 32 repeat orgs$4.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +8% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

32 repeat relationships: 23 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 36 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

32
37

Total granted

$7.6M
$2.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
0%

Still filing today

38%
49%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.6M went to new ones.

50%100%’18’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthCivil RightsRecreation & SportsEnvironmentPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • IR
    IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $369k · revenue +62%
  • PA
    President and Fellows of Middlebury College
    2× · 2022–2024 · $275k · revenue +3%
  • University of Chicago
    2× · 2023–2024 · $228k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
    one grant, 2024 · $403k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
    one grant, 2023 · $270k
  • DUKE UNIVERSITYgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $267k · revenue +27%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
2
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
3
University Associates in Obstetrics and Gynecology University Faculty Pract ice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
4
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
5
Trustees of Tufts College

Education and Research

Education
6
Cornell University

Education, research, medical services and other public services.

Education
7
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
8
University of Maryland Obstetrical Andgynecological Associates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

—
9
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
10
Stony Brook Urology University Faculty Practice Corporation

Provide clinical instruction to and supervision of medical school students, interns and residents and, incident thereto, rendering professional services.

Health
11
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
12
University of Maryland Anesthesiology Associates Pa

Under the medical service plan of the university of maryland school of medicine, medical services are rendered by the members of the faculty on behalf of the school of medicine in connection with their duties to provide clinical…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Pittsburgh; the most unlike its peers is Indigenous Women Rising Indigeous Women Rising. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

48 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 48 of the 109 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
47/48
Grantees still filing
25/48
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $2,092,682 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCOUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $897,620 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTONUniversity of Maryland: $430,068 · OtherThe Ohio State University: $416,995 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $402,571 · OtherUniversity of Colorado Denver: $389,896 · OtherRESOUND RESEARCH FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: $341,068 · Other+61 more: $3,377,664 · Other+61 morePresident and Fellows of Middlebury College: $274,753 · EducationPresident and Fel…DUKE UNIVERSITY: $267,360 · EducationDUKE UNIVERSITYUniversity of Chicago: $227,871 · EducationUniversity of Chi…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $172,254 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNI…UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $82,500 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $80,585 · EducationThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $75,000 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $68,706 · EducationThe George Washington University: $67,500 · EducationTHE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND: $59,761 · Education+14 more: $394,833 · Education+14 moreIBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC: $368,858 · HealthIBIS REPRO…GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $188,690 · HealthGEORGIA TE…BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $121,315 · HealthBOSTON MED…PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $82,479 · HealthPLANNED PA…FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF MAINE INC: $75,000 · HealthFAMILY PLA…PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTH CENTRAL STATES: $64,356 · HealthPLANNED PA…PLAN A HEALTH INC: $50,000 · HealthKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $48,471 · HealthPlanned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri: $45,000 · Health+3 more: $18,384 · HealthIFWHENHOW: $153,976 · Civil RightsNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $121,204 · Civil RightsLOUISIANA ABORTION FUND: $130,821 · EnvironmentNorthwestern University: $57,209 · Recreation & SportsThe Rand Corporation: $54,000 · Public Benefit
Other$8,348,564Education$1,771,123Health$1,062,553Civil Rights$275,180Environment$130,821Recreation & Sports$57,209Public Benefit$54,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC: $368,858 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Middlebury College: $274,753 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $267,360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $227,871 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $188,690 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $172,254 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetIFWHENHOW: $153,976 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetLOUISIANA ABORTION FUND: $130,821 over 2y, 9.5% of budgetBOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION: $121,315 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM: $121,204 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $82,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $82,479 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $80,585 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $75,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF MAINE INC: $75,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $68,706 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe George Washington University: $67,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGuttmacher Institute Inc: $67,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTH CENTRAL STATES: $64,356 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND: $59,761 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwestern University: $57,209 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $54,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFeminist Womens Health Center Inc: $54,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetThe Rand Corporation: $54,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $54,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDREXEL UNIVERSITY: $53,927 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST LOUIS UNIVERSITY: $53,847 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN UNIVERSITY: $50,771 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPLAN A HEALTH INC: $50,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetKentucky Health Justice Network Inc: $48,471 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetPlanned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri: $45,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTemple University - Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education: $37,066 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetARCADIA UNIVERSITY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI: $21,605 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE QUEEN'S MEDICAL CENTER: $14,827 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINDIGENOUS WOMEN RISING INDIGEOUS WOMEN RISING: $9,924 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMemphis Center For Reproductive Health Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNew York University: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: $7,459 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYale University: $7,403 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRochester Institute of Technology: $7,255 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOCIETY OF FAMILY PLANNING RESEARCH FUND: $6,469 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBROWN UNIVERSITY: $2,150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Kansas Center for Research Inc: $1,969 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds IBIS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INC ↗
  • Who funds President and Fellows of Middlebury College ↗
  • Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds IFWHENHOW ↗
  • Who funds LOUISIANA ABORTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗
  • Who funds The Research Foundation for The State University of New York ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF MAINE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Susan Thompson Bu…Hopewell FundRockefeller Philanthr…Ms Foundation for Wom…Amalgamated Charitabl…National Women's Law …Planned Parenthood Fe…Groundswell FundNew Venture FundSilicon Valley Commun…Society of Family Pla…National Institute fo…
The Susan Thompson Buffett FoundationNE21.9× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Hopewell Fund · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · National Women's Law Center · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · Groundswell Fund · New Venture Fund · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Society of Family Planning Research Fund · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Society of Family Planning funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Society of Family Planning. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Boston Medical Center Corporation: 23% of income from government
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Yale University: 12% of income from government
  • Ibis Reproductive Health Inc: 9% of income from government
  • Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts Inc: 3% of income from government
  • President and Fellows of Middlebury College: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Society of Family Planning?

Find your warmest path to Society of Family Planning through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 109 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Society of Family Planning’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home